It wasn't a matter of time, it was a matter of pacing. It's not like he had a solid limit on the running length.
After the Battle of Helm's Deep and the destruction of Isengard by the Ents, as a filmmaker, you would have about 10 minutes *at best* left before you would have to end the movie. Otherwise the audience gets shifty, as they're expecting it to be over, and you lose them. Surely you've seen a movie or two in your day where the director dragged the denoument out for 15 minutes, and you're practically screaming, "End the movie already!"
There'd simply be no way to cram both Sauruman's comeuppance AND the far-more-vital final scene with Sam, Frodo, and Gollum into that span of time without losing most of the viewers.
Oh, I don't say there aren't legitimate gripes to be maad. I was personally annoyed with the Arwen Dream Sequence in TTT. But if you read the comments further down this thread, you see a lot of people who seem to regard FOTR as being akin to the Bible, and any defilement of it as utter sacriledge.
Just as a note of trivia, according to Zemeckis on the big BTTF DVD set, 2 and 3 originally WERE one movie. With #3 being, essentially, the last act. Then they split them and expanded both parts.
Oh, Jackson's done a fantastic job. And I have no doubt that ROTK will rock my world as well. I get massively annoyed by these fanboys who appear to think that Tolkien is somehow "above" film adaptation, and even though it's perfectly fine to fold, spindle, or mutilate any OTHER book to make it into a movie, LOTR must be 100% literal or not exist at all. Riiiiiiiiiigh-t.
(chuckles) I was making an illustrative example. People (not me) complained about Revolutions starting by wrapping up Reloaded. Now they're complaining that ROTK is *not* starting by wrapping up TTT.
Actually, if you take Revolutions and Reloaded as one movie, they can be perfectly charted as a five-act Shakespearian drama. Which I think is damn cool.:-)
Oh, and the other reason for the discussion with the Indian guy was to help cement in Neo's mind the impermanence of reality, one of the last steps he needed to take to achieve Enlightenment.;-)
I hate ditto posts, but EX-FRICKING-ACTLY! I am getting so tired of companies these days coming up with "business plans" that wouldn't survive a week in the real world, just because they can hide within the labyrinth of laws and smash anyone who acosts them. If they are "selling" those cameras at a loss, then that is *profoundly* stupid and they deserve to take a beating on it. (and they will since, now that the crack is out, it's never going to go away no matter how many people they sue)
He may have been a real person once, but today, Billy the Kid is a mythological figure no different than Zeus or Odin. Without delving too deeply into Campbell, I'd say that going to all this effort to prove which is THE Mister The Kid really accomplishes nothing, when allowing his stories to thrive uninterrupted provides a psychological service.
It's one of those cases where a Book and Movies are two different storytelling types. In a book, you can have a denoument that goes on for 200 pages. But you can't get away with that in a movie - if he followed the book, the destruction of the ring would happen at about the 2 hour mark, and the audience would then be bored out of their wits for the rest of the movie.
The Scouring is a nice sequence, but it would never work within a movie, and isn't vital to the core plotlines.
Uh, hate to tell you this, but we've known for over two years that the Scouring was out. It was pretty much the 2nd major sequence to go after Tom Bombadil.
(sigh) Nice to see that a few people here have knowledge of filmmaking to the point of understanding that a 1:1 translation of any book to film is impossible. I'm saddened that the scene is gone too, but as PJ describes it, I can completely see why he decided to take it out.
Just look at how many people have complained about the first act of Matrix Revolutions, since it really IS just about wrapping up the previous movie...
This article at Ain't It Cool is where Jackson talks about it, which I'll go on mirror here since AICN's servers have been so touchy lately: (an e-mail from PJ to Harry Knowles)
Saruman thing you describe is a muddle of half-truths.
We have decided to save the Saruman sequence for the DVD. It's a great little scene. 7 mins long. Chris is wonderful, as usual. Brad is in about 6 shots. It was a film maker decision - nothing to do with the studio.
The problem is that the sequence was originally shot for The Two Towers, as it is in the book. Since The Two Towers couldn't sustain a 7 min "wrap" after Helm's Deep, we thought it would be a good idea to save it for the beginning of the Return of the King. The trouble is, when we viewed various ROTK cuts over the last few weeks, it feels like the first scenes are wrapping last year's movie, instead of starting the new one. We felt it got ROTK off to an uncertain beginning, since Saruman plays no role in the events of ROTK (we don't have the Scouring later, as the book does), yet we dwell in Isengard for quite a long time before our new story kicks off.
We reluctantly made the decision to save this sequence for the DVD. The choice was made on the basis that most people will assume that Saruman was vanquished by the Helm's Deep events, and Ent attack. We can now crack straight into setting up the narrative tension of ROTK, which features Sauron as the villian.
It was a very similar situation to last year when we decided to take a nice Boromir/Denethor flashback out of The Two Towers, and put it in the DVD. It was causing us pacing problems in the theatrical version, but with the Extended Cut just coming out now, fans can see this great little scene. Thank God for DVD, since it does mean that a version of the movie, which has different pacing requirements, can be released later. The Saruman sequence will definately be a highlight of the Extended ROTK DVD.
We have a lot of great DVD material this time around. As we crafted the movie, we reduced it from an over 4 hour running time, down to 3.12 (without credits - about 8 mins long). This was done by us. There were no studio cutting notes. We now have a movie with a pace that fells ok for it's theatrical release. One more week to go. We are nearly there. Will we still be standing? It's going to be a close run thing.
Cheers,
Peter J
As he describes it, it definately sounds like just One of Those Things that happens when you're adapting books to film.
Probably, but at what cost? Every time I hear about this changeover to HDTV, it's gotten more tortuously complex and more expensive to everyone all around. *I* was against the mandate back when all it meant was that everyone had to buy a $50 downconverter if they wanted to keep receiving broadcast channels on an old TV.
Now we're looking at having to purchase large amounts of hardware to really keep up which, when we do so, will suddenly render us unable to watch old videotapes and whatnot. Not to mention the cost to the stations and studios, converting all of their old syndicated shows to work with the new format. How many shows will be effectively lost because they aren't worth the expense of moving to digital format?
Sounds to me like the government needs to figure out their frequency problems for themselves and quit bothering us about it. I'm just not seeing how this falls within the FCC's mandate to manage the airwaves for the collective good.
Number one, the automatic assumption that unless piracy goes away, people will stop producing media. This is a MYTH, pure and simple. IP piracy has existed since the invention of the idea of copyrights, and the ability of people to pirate has always more or less kept pace with the ability of content holders to put out more and more content.
The argument that the digital age alters this is simply nonsensical. What it boils down to is that the content providers have decided that it's quicker and easier to legislate change in their favor rather than adjusting their business plan to fit a changing market. Had the RIAA legitimately embraced the potential of Napster-style P2P products, as any halfway smart business-person would've, then we wouldn't have the whole music piracy war going on. Instead they ignored the next logical step in musical distribution, until it had gotten so corrupted that it was beyond their ability to really capitalize on.
Same goes for movie producers. They all stuck their heads in the ground and hoped the digital revolution would go away if they pretended it was going on. That is pretty much the definition of a business model which deserves to fail. Adjust your plan to suit the times, or die. They allowed themselves to fall disasterously behind the curve, I see no reason our government should bail them out.
And, number two, how long has HDTV been around? How long has it NOT made many inroads into the consumer market? Sad to say, people have spoken very clearly with their wallets and made it abundantly clear they don't care about HDTV *that* much. But then the government got this idea into their head that they should force everyone to upgrade. It's the FCC mandate for HDTV transition itself we should be debating, not silly moves like this whole "flagging" business.
So, let's see... Consumers don't want the products because they're so expensive. The studios can't really afford to convert all of their archives to the new format. The stockholders don't want to gamble their investment dollars on a technology that's been around for about a decade now and no one has really bought into.
So the government steps in and mandates that everyone must upgrade whether they like it or not.
Does this not make sense to anyone else? I'm far from a pure laissez-faire Capitalist, but if everyone involved (besides the hardware OEMs) has pretty clearly said they don't want to mess with it, why in the world is the government forcing it on us?
So, in short, this whole broadcast flag nonsense is a red herring. It's a symptom of a couple far larger wounds - ones that will just keep festering as long as we think we can get away with slapping band-aids on them.
I use the term "faniciful" because that entire line of argument rests upon a long string of ifs, each one legally unlikely. It's not that it couldn't happen - a judge would technically have the power to strip the copyrights, but he'd have to be the world's worst (or most corrupt) judge to actually do so.
And I know the constitutitionality argument is distinct, I was just using it to illustrate how utterly wacked their lawyers are. I'm truly surprised the judge is putting up with this nonsense at all - I keep expecting a dismissal with predjudice any day now. (when the lawyer is making arguments that even a layman would laugh at, AND the company is refusing to adhere to court orders as part of the Discovery process, that's a pretty good indication the suit has no business being in court at all...)
But yes, the way their stock keeps rising is the truly maddening thing about this. The question is, do the investors not know... or do they not care? At any rate, if SCO gets any more abusive, the COs themselves may be looking at trial dates...
But that's still a fanciful scenario. There's no way "clear intent" could be seriously argued because those who contributed to Linux can be presumed to have done so with an understanding of the GPL license. Even if it's broken, one has to assume it reflects the real intent of the copyright holders. And it very clearly states that many rights ARE reserved. Like the right of the original copyright holders to sue anyone who breaks the GPL.:-) In essence, it says "you can use MY intellectual property freely, but ONLY under these very specific circumstances." There's no argument for an intent of public domain in there.
Or, at worst, all it would really take is one Linux contributor (and there'd be at least one in any major city willing to spend a day in a courtroom) to stand up in court and say, "No, my work is NOT public domain," to completely shoot down the idea.
But then, all this may not have occured to SCO's lawyers, who have seriously presented the argument that the GPL is "unconstitutional." So it's entirely possible that they're umpa-loompas.:-)
Except their posting up of their OWN Linux build defeats all that. If the GPL is upheld, they get sued by thousands of Linux programmers for breech of contract. If the GPL is broken, they get sued by thousands of Linux programmers for IP infringement. There is NO scenario wherein they can claim the right to distribute their own Linux without adhering to the GPL.
And the idea of it being declared equivilent to public domain is fanciful at best - legally if the GPL is struck down, all copyrights then revert back to being handled under the 1977 copyright law. If a judge actually were to so rule, it would be immediately struck down on appeal - there's simply no legal basis for stripping the code of its copyright protections entirely without the express permission of the copyright holder.
I'm not sure if that was meant to be funny, but I agree. "Tho this be madness, yet there be method t'it." Any ONE of the moves they've made lately should prove destructive to the company, much less hitting the proverbial trifecta. Either they've completely lost their minds, or there's something bigger going on.
About the only thing I can think is that, it seems like every time they launch some damn fool crusade against someone, their stocks go up. So maybe the COs have decided to launch a huge, suicidal flurry of lawsuits as some kind of large-scale pump & dump effort.
I'm starting to think that SCO's strategic decisions are being made by the proverbial room of infinite monkeys. The last few pieces of news about them haven't been maddening, just sad and funny. Opening themselves to thousands of IP lawsuits from Linux programmers? Making a marketing move which virtually hands Red Hat's case to them? And now, attacking an entity which has the power to crush them without a second thought, or even doing more than digging metaphorical pocket change out of the couch?
It's just insane. I can't find any cohesive thread tying all this together.
(Disclaimer, I haven't seen it yet, just speculating)
One thing that's interesting about the Matrix movies is that they've become a LOT of different things to a lot of different people. Thanks to the Wachowskis rather brilliant blending of pop culture, Campbell, Jung, Christianity, and Buddhism, they're movies that can resonate with people on so many different levels. Just look at the various articles that've been written since 1999 interpreting the movies and you can see it. You could almost believe these people are seeing different films under the same name.
The problem though, is that a finale, by its nature, must be conclusive. It has to have at least some answers to the big questions. And if (SPECULATING) for example, you were wanting to see a Taoist "balance" ending, and it turns out to be a western-style Good-triumphs-over-Evil, then you're going to be disappointed. Or if you consider the philosophical questions about Causality and Fate more important than the skeleton plot, if the movie is too action-heavy you're going to be irritated that it doesn't solve the philosophical quandaries. (or vice-versa in either situation, obviously)
So, while I won't know for myself until about 4 this afternoon, I suspect the problem is not going to be one of Revolutions being a bad\disappointing movie, but that there is simply no way that the Wachowskis could wrap it up and provide a satisfactory conclusion to ALL the "movies" which the Matrix has become to its viewers.
ANY system, no matter how well-intentioned, which allows the voters to walk out with a notarized proof of their vote is bad. Because that leads straight into vote-buying. Not that it doesn't happen already, but it would happen on a far larger scale. (check out the history of English election politics, especially in the late 1800s)
And besides, your system brings up another issue - do we WANT 90% voter turn out if half of those people are throwing their votes away? Voting for people at random? Coming up with arbitrary schemes like "I'll vote for whoever has the most Os in their name." (I knew a guy who did that at all the local level once because he had no clue who the candidates were besides the one he cared about) Or worse, just voting straight-party ticket without knowing a thing about the issues?
That's the big problem with compulsary voting schemes. You might be able to compel the people to vote, but you can't compel them to CARE. The current system, while of course deeply flawed, at least ensures that most of the people casting votes have some tiny clue what they're doing, and are at least slightly informed. Telling people "We don't care how misinformed you are or whether you vote the Hitler-Mousellini ticket, just as long as you stamp that ballot," is an invitation for our electoral system to become even LESS reflective of the greater will.
Which struck me as a VERY odd thing for someone at MIT to say, given that the sentence could be read as suggesting some sort of tech-head conspiracy just as easily as meaning that the intelligentia say the booths are bad.
Why didn't he say something a bit more solid about WHY the comp-scis are against it?
Yeah, that annoyed me. Although at least your average person should be bright enough to question whether they can have empirical data that someone *enjoyed* the experience. (or perhaps be savvy enough to question whether voting is something one is SUPPOSED to enjoy on anything but a moral level)
The problem, of course, is this newsbite media format. The article had to spend so much time just setting up the issue that there was no room for anything besides "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" Maybe they (or Time or Newsweek) will run a more in-depth article where they can have the security results of all the comp-sci researchers stacked up against the Diebold puppet saying, "No really, they're secure! Trust us!"
Slashdot Mirror
(sarcasm)
After the Battle of Helm's Deep and the destruction of Isengard by the Ents, as a filmmaker, you would have about 10 minutes *at best* left before you would have to end the movie. Otherwise the audience gets shifty, as they're expecting it to be over, and you lose them. Surely you've seen a movie or two in your day where the director dragged the denoument out for 15 minutes, and you're practically screaming, "End the movie already!"
There'd simply be no way to cram both Sauruman's comeuppance AND the far-more-vital final scene with Sam, Frodo, and Gollum into that span of time without losing most of the viewers.
Oh, I don't say there aren't legitimate gripes to be maad. I was personally annoyed with the Arwen Dream Sequence in TTT. But if you read the comments further down this thread, you see a lot of people who seem to regard FOTR as being akin to the Bible, and any defilement of it as utter sacriledge.
The books, conversely, diverge quite a lot from the scripted version.
Just as a note of trivia, according to Zemeckis on the big BTTF DVD set, 2 and 3 originally WERE one movie. With #3 being, essentially, the last act. Then they split them and expanded both parts.
Oh, Jackson's done a fantastic job. And I have no doubt that ROTK will rock my world as well. I get massively annoyed by these fanboys who appear to think that Tolkien is somehow "above" film adaptation, and even though it's perfectly fine to fold, spindle, or mutilate any OTHER book to make it into a movie, LOTR must be 100% literal or not exist at all. Riiiiiiiiiigh-t.
Actually, if you take Revolutions and Reloaded as one movie, they can be perfectly charted as a five-act Shakespearian drama. Which I think is damn cool. :-)
Oh, and the other reason for the discussion with the Indian guy was to help cement in Neo's mind the impermanence of reality, one of the last steps he needed to take to achieve Enlightenment. ;-)
I hate ditto posts, but EX-FRICKING-ACTLY! I am getting so tired of companies these days coming up with "business plans" that wouldn't survive a week in the real world, just because they can hide within the labyrinth of laws and smash anyone who acosts them. If they are "selling" those cameras at a loss, then that is *profoundly* stupid and they deserve to take a beating on it. (and they will since, now that the crack is out, it's never going to go away no matter how many people they sue)
He may have been a real person once, but today, Billy the Kid is a mythological figure no different than Zeus or Odin. Without delving too deeply into Campbell, I'd say that going to all this effort to prove which is THE Mister The Kid really accomplishes nothing, when allowing his stories to thrive uninterrupted provides a psychological service.
The Scouring is a nice sequence, but it would never work within a movie, and isn't vital to the core plotlines.
Uh, hate to tell you this, but we've known for over two years that the Scouring was out. It was pretty much the 2nd major sequence to go after Tom Bombadil.
Just look at how many people have complained about the first act of Matrix Revolutions, since it really IS just about wrapping up the previous movie...
Saruman thing you describe is a muddle of half-truths.
We have decided to save the Saruman sequence for the DVD. It's a great little scene. 7 mins long. Chris is wonderful, as usual. Brad is in about 6 shots. It was a film maker decision - nothing to do with the studio.
The problem is that the sequence was originally shot for The Two Towers, as it is in the book. Since The Two Towers couldn't sustain a 7 min "wrap" after Helm's Deep, we thought it would be a good idea to save it for the beginning of the Return of the King. The trouble is, when we viewed various ROTK cuts over the last few weeks, it feels like the first scenes are wrapping last year's movie, instead of starting the new one. We felt it got ROTK off to an uncertain beginning, since Saruman plays no role in the events of ROTK (we don't have the Scouring later, as the book does), yet we dwell in Isengard for quite a long time before our new story kicks off.
We reluctantly made the decision to save this sequence for the DVD. The choice was made on the basis that most people will assume that Saruman was vanquished by the Helm's Deep events, and Ent attack. We can now crack straight into setting up the narrative tension of ROTK, which features Sauron as the villian.
It was a very similar situation to last year when we decided to take a nice Boromir/Denethor flashback out of The Two Towers, and put it in the DVD. It was causing us pacing problems in the theatrical version, but with the Extended Cut just coming out now, fans can see this great little scene. Thank God for DVD, since it does mean that a version of the movie, which has different pacing requirements, can be released later. The Saruman sequence will definately be a highlight of the Extended ROTK DVD.
We have a lot of great DVD material this time around. As we crafted the movie, we reduced it from an over 4 hour running time, down to 3.12 (without credits - about 8 mins long). This was done by us. There were no studio cutting notes. We now have a movie with a pace that fells ok for it's theatrical release. One more week to go. We are nearly there. Will we still be standing? It's going to be a close run thing.
Cheers,
Peter J
As he describes it, it definately sounds like just One of Those Things that happens when you're adapting books to film.
Now we're looking at having to purchase large amounts of hardware to really keep up which, when we do so, will suddenly render us unable to watch old videotapes and whatnot. Not to mention the cost to the stations and studios, converting all of their old syndicated shows to work with the new format. How many shows will be effectively lost because they aren't worth the expense of moving to digital format?
Sounds to me like the government needs to figure out their frequency problems for themselves and quit bothering us about it. I'm just not seeing how this falls within the FCC's mandate to manage the airwaves for the collective good.
The argument that the digital age alters this is simply nonsensical. What it boils down to is that the content providers have decided that it's quicker and easier to legislate change in their favor rather than adjusting their business plan to fit a changing market. Had the RIAA legitimately embraced the potential of Napster-style P2P products, as any halfway smart business-person would've, then we wouldn't have the whole music piracy war going on. Instead they ignored the next logical step in musical distribution, until it had gotten so corrupted that it was beyond their ability to really capitalize on.
Same goes for movie producers. They all stuck their heads in the ground and hoped the digital revolution would go away if they pretended it was going on. That is pretty much the definition of a business model which deserves to fail. Adjust your plan to suit the times, or die. They allowed themselves to fall disasterously behind the curve, I see no reason our government should bail them out.
And, number two, how long has HDTV been around? How long has it NOT made many inroads into the consumer market? Sad to say, people have spoken very clearly with their wallets and made it abundantly clear they don't care about HDTV *that* much. But then the government got this idea into their head that they should force everyone to upgrade. It's the FCC mandate for HDTV transition itself we should be debating, not silly moves like this whole "flagging" business.
So, let's see... Consumers don't want the products because they're so expensive. The studios can't really afford to convert all of their archives to the new format. The stockholders don't want to gamble their investment dollars on a technology that's been around for about a decade now and no one has really bought into.
So the government steps in and mandates that everyone must upgrade whether they like it or not.
Does this not make sense to anyone else? I'm far from a pure laissez-faire Capitalist, but if everyone involved (besides the hardware OEMs) has pretty clearly said they don't want to mess with it, why in the world is the government forcing it on us?
So, in short, this whole broadcast flag nonsense is a red herring. It's a symptom of a couple far larger wounds - ones that will just keep festering as long as we think we can get away with slapping band-aids on them.
And I know the constitutitionality argument is distinct, I was just using it to illustrate how utterly wacked their lawyers are. I'm truly surprised the judge is putting up with this nonsense at all - I keep expecting a dismissal with predjudice any day now. (when the lawyer is making arguments that even a layman would laugh at, AND the company is refusing to adhere to court orders as part of the Discovery process, that's a pretty good indication the suit has no business being in court at all...)
But yes, the way their stock keeps rising is the truly maddening thing about this. The question is, do the investors not know... or do they not care? At any rate, if SCO gets any more abusive, the COs themselves may be looking at trial dates...
Or, at worst, all it would really take is one Linux contributor (and there'd be at least one in any major city willing to spend a day in a courtroom) to stand up in court and say, "No, my work is NOT public domain," to completely shoot down the idea.
But then, all this may not have occured to SCO's lawyers, who have seriously presented the argument that the GPL is "unconstitutional." So it's entirely possible that they're umpa-loompas. :-)
And the idea of it being declared equivilent to public domain is fanciful at best - legally if the GPL is struck down, all copyrights then revert back to being handled under the 1977 copyright law. If a judge actually were to so rule, it would be immediately struck down on appeal - there's simply no legal basis for stripping the code of its copyright protections entirely without the express permission of the copyright holder.
About the only thing I can think is that, it seems like every time they launch some damn fool crusade against someone, their stocks go up. So maybe the COs have decided to launch a huge, suicidal flurry of lawsuits as some kind of large-scale pump & dump effort.
It's just insane. I can't find any cohesive thread tying all this together.
Arrrghhh... THEIR movies. (smacks himself)
One thing that's interesting about the Matrix movies is that they've become a LOT of different things to a lot of different people. Thanks to the Wachowskis rather brilliant blending of pop culture, Campbell, Jung, Christianity, and Buddhism, they're movies that can resonate with people on so many different levels. Just look at the various articles that've been written since 1999 interpreting the movies and you can see it. You could almost believe these people are seeing different films under the same name.
The problem though, is that a finale, by its nature, must be conclusive. It has to have at least some answers to the big questions. And if (SPECULATING) for example, you were wanting to see a Taoist "balance" ending, and it turns out to be a western-style Good-triumphs-over-Evil, then you're going to be disappointed. Or if you consider the philosophical questions about Causality and Fate more important than the skeleton plot, if the movie is too action-heavy you're going to be irritated that it doesn't solve the philosophical quandaries. (or vice-versa in either situation, obviously)
So, while I won't know for myself until about 4 this afternoon, I suspect the problem is not going to be one of Revolutions being a bad\disappointing movie, but that there is simply no way that the Wachowskis could wrap it up and provide a satisfactory conclusion to ALL the "movies" which the Matrix has become to its viewers.
ANY system, no matter how well-intentioned, which allows the voters to walk out with a notarized proof of their vote is bad. Because that leads straight into vote-buying. Not that it doesn't happen already, but it would happen on a far larger scale. (check out the history of English election politics, especially in the late 1800s)
And besides, your system brings up another issue - do we WANT 90% voter turn out if half of those people are throwing their votes away? Voting for people at random? Coming up with arbitrary schemes like "I'll vote for whoever has the most Os in their name." (I knew a guy who did that at all the local level once because he had no clue who the candidates were besides the one he cared about) Or worse, just voting straight-party ticket without knowing a thing about the issues?
That's the big problem with compulsary voting schemes. You might be able to compel the people to vote, but you can't compel them to CARE. The current system, while of course deeply flawed, at least ensures that most of the people casting votes have some tiny clue what they're doing, and are at least slightly informed. Telling people "We don't care how misinformed you are or whether you vote the Hitler-Mousellini ticket, just as long as you stamp that ballot," is an invitation for our electoral system to become even LESS reflective of the greater will.
Why didn't he say something a bit more solid about WHY the comp-scis are against it?
The problem, of course, is this newsbite media format. The article had to spend so much time just setting up the issue that there was no room for anything besides "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" Maybe they (or Time or Newsweek) will run a more in-depth article where they can have the security results of all the comp-sci researchers stacked up against the Diebold puppet saying, "No really, they're secure! Trust us!"